243 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

motomotogirl wrote...

Honestly, I'm playing DA:O right now (with my current avatar) and I don't see what people are talking about. It isn't all that different from DA2 except that it's unvoiced. One option is always sugar sweet, one tends to be sarcastic, and one may be rude. There may be one or two more, but not always.

When I chose for Hawke to tell Grand Cleric Elthina, "You're useless," Hawke verbally screamed, "Get out of my way!" Yet you're telling me that there wasn't a difference between Origins and Dragon Age II, despite the fact that when I chose dialogue option for my Surana Warden, it wasn't dramatically changed every time because of the incredibly bad paraphrasing.

motomotogirl wrote...

They've already said they're addressing the paraphrase issue, so there's really no need to despair over that anymore. I'm pretty confident dialogue will be a really happy medium b/w DA:O and DA2... well, mostly DA2 since I think that was the superior version, but with the paraphrase situation adjusted.

Actually, the developers said the disconnect between the dialogue option chosen, and what the protagonist verbally says, would still be an issue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Brodoteau wrote...

But in the case of DA2, Varric is actually the narrator.  You are playing a character within Varric's story.  So you are perceiving people not from within a character but from within a character's story.  We never meet Hawke outside of Varric's story.  So... it is understandable that there are some limitations on your role-playing.  If we met the "Real" Hawke, he could be completely different from the Hawke you played in Varric's story.  You are playing the perception of a character by another, not the actual character. 

But the character we're playing isn't the real Hawke.  Yes, the real Hawke may well be different from Varric's depiction of Hawke - maybe the real Hawke was the serial killer, maybe the real Hawke blew up the chantry himself - but we don't get to play that Hawke.

If we accept that Varric's not describing our character, why would we then want to play the game?  Varric's telling a fine story, but it's not our story.  Why do we care?

Further, you are always going to have some limitations on your character for the sake of the game.  We cannot, after all, quit the game (from inside the game).  In DA:O, you had to save Arl Eamon, no choice.

This is patently false.  You run out of content faster if you refuse to complete main quests, but the choice to complete them is yours.  The game never just informs you that you saved Arl Eamon - you have to actively choose to do so.  That there is no available alternative isn't relevant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Veex wrote...

How you imagine your character saying a line has no bearing on how the NPC you're speaking with reacts. The tone is just as fixed in DA:O as it is in DA2, one is just transparent.

That second sentence doesn't follow from the first.

Yes, the tone the player imagines has no impact on the NPC response.  This is true.  No one is disputing that.

How you think that has any relationship to whether the tone is fixed, however, I have no idea.  Please connect those dots for me.

Just because you imagine your Warden saying a line to Oghren aggressively or sarcastically doesn't change the response Oghren will give you.

Because Oghren's an unflappable guy.  Or perhaps the Oghren to whom you speak aggressively is different from the Oghren to whom you speak sarcastically.  There are many other possible explanations for why Oghren's response is the same - you have jumpedto one in particular, with no justification.

In fact, I'm going to object to your phrasing, there.  You said how the line is said "doesn't change the response Oghren will give you."  This is nonsensical.  The two responses from Oghren don't exist in the same universe, so there is no changing from one to the other.  In one univerise, the Warden speaks aggressively, and Oghren responds as he does.  In another, the Warden speaks sarcastically, and Oghren responds as he does.  The concept of changing from one to the other doesn't apply.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I get that some people like to imagine their character's tone, and that having that tone made explicit for them prevents them from imagining that for themselves and thus they feel restricted by it.  That is, however, not something we can change with the move to a voiced protagonist--

Did you know, when you switched to the voiced protagonist, that this was going to be a problem, or was it a surprise to you when people started complaining about it?

Also, do you think that the explicit tone provided by the voice changes how you write the dialogue?  I get that you write longer back-and-forth reponses with the more cinematic conversations and the paraphrases, but I'm asking specifically about the tone.  I know you have always thought that the tone was already there in the game, but now that it's explicit with the voice do you rely more heavily on the tone to impart meaning than you did before, and thus have that tone play a larger part in driving NPC responses to lines?

Of so, then I might understand why you think simply turning off the voice wouldn't work.

Improving paraphrases, sure.

I really want to see what you're doing with those.  I would have described the paraphrases as a separate problem from the fixed tone, but you putting them together here makes me very curious about how you're improving them.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Did you know, when you switched to the voiced protagonist, that this was going to be a problem, or was it a surprise to you when people started complaining about it?

Did we know that people who preferred the silent protagonist wouldn't like it, and that people who get more out of a voiced protagonist would? Yes.

Also, do you think that the explicit tone provided by the voice changes how you write the dialogue?

Yes, the player's side of it. They can actually take part in scenes.

but now that it's explicit with the voice do you rely more heavily on the tone to impart meaning than you did before, and thus have that tone play a larger part in driving NPC responses to lines?

Absolutely. There is no longer a need for a character to say "I am sad", for instance, when they can say the line sadly.

I really want to see what you're doing with those.  I would have described the paraphrases as a separate problem from the fixed tone, but you putting them together here makes me very curious about how you're improving them.

It's primarily a matter of spending more time on reviewing them and doing them better. The actual physical changes to the presentation and other tweaks are things we will discuss later. Whatever those changes are, however, they will not assuage concerns by people who have a fundamental problem with paraphrases and don't accept them as a solution to their issue with a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 octobre 2012 - 05:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Xewaka wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them.

This is a perspective I have never agreed with. It may be unpredictable how someone whom I do not know (particularly of a different culture) may react to something, but I rarely if ever find myself surprised by how my peers respond to something that I say.

I have 31 years of learning how people interact in conversations, and given the level of sass that I pour on in my every day conversation, my peers would outright hate me based on the things that I say. Except that they all know it's sass because they know me, and I know them. I know how to talk with them and can read visual cues as to whether or not it's an appropriate time to sass and joke around and when it's not.

In casual conversation with my peers, it tends to play out exactly the way I would expect it to, and I don't consider myself to be someone with a 100+ rank in Speech skill either! (Although maybe I underestimate myself? I remember reading up a skeptical comment when I was first posting on ME3's boards that my posts "clearly" had several editor passes go over them before being posted... which I took as a compliment!)

So you're stating that you have to already know a person and have learned its body language cues in order to avoid misunderstandings. How does that avoid misunderstandings with people we've yet to know -- which comprises the majority of them?

No, I'm not stating that I have to know someone.  I underlined the word you missed (which was already italicized in my original post), which just to be clear is "may."

I can interact with complete strangers and and the overwhelming majority of the time, they behave the way I expected.

An example:  I stopped by a convenience store to pick up a chocolate milk after volleyball.  I saw that there was a damaged one leaking in the cooler.  As I went up to pay for it, I figured the person (whom I've never met before in my entire life) would appreciate it if I let her know that it was leaking and making a mess, so as the interac transaction was going, I said "Oh by the way, I noticed that one of the other jugs was damaged and leaking."  I predicted that she would appreciate this.  I also predicted that she would probably go investigate when the transaction was done.  Sure enough, that's exactly what she did.

Why did I think she would behave like this?  Well, I mentioned it in a polite tone of voice, and waited until she wasn't talking to me any more so I didn't interrupt her.  All this despite even being a different ethnicity to boot!  I'll even go out and say that I could replicate this situation 100 different times, and it would probably result in a similar response every single time.

Now, if I was snide and rude and said "You know, there's a big giant mess in the back" and demonstrated callous body language and overall came across like a ponce, I'd expect a different result.


Another example:
As I was crossing the street to work, a guy started wailing on his horn.  My initial reaction was "what the heck?" and was thinking someone was being stupid and irrational, but then I looked over and saw it was a friend from work giving me a hard time.  It immediately shifted from a sneer to a sassy "point at my wrist" indicating he's late for work (counter sass).  If I wail on a horn to a stranger, I'd expect a more hostile response (much like the one I was prepared to give).  If I wail on a horn to a friend, I expect him to respond more cordially (much like how I did to my friend).

[ledod]

If DA: I is going the voiced route, are we to expect more varied tones than "Good," "Diplomatic,"...?

[Allan Schumacher]

To play Devil's Advocate here, these ARE people from a different culture. I am not a resident of Thedas, that I know of. In addition, my character is often speaking to characters with whom the Common tongue is not their native language (Qunari, Antivans, Rivani, Orlesians, etc.,etc.).

To counter devil's advocate, you shouldn't be taking "Fast Jimmy's" perspective on things since even in DAO, you're playing a character that IS the resident of Thedas.

[Brodoteau]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[But the character we're playing isn't the real Hawke.  Yes, the real Hawke may well be different from Varric's depiction of Hawke - maybe the real Hawke was the serial killer, maybe the real Hawke blew up the chantry himself - but we don't get to play that Hawke.

If we accept that Varric's not describing our character, why would we then want to play the game?  Varric's telling a fine story, but it's not our story.  Why do we care?

Because you are playing the story. The point is exactly this, it is not your story.  It's a framed narrative. You are simply deciding how Varric tells the story (the what).  If you want, you can imagine that you are Varric telling the story...  

This is patently false.  You run out of content faster if you refuse to complete main quests, but the choice to complete them is yours.  The game never just informs you that you saved Arl Eamon - you have to actively choose to do so.  That there is no available alternative isn't relevant.

No it's not false.  Having no choice is a game limitation, not a choice.  It's semantics.  You HAVE to save Arl Eamon.  You can't mercy kill him.  You can't tell Tegan to grow a pair and take over.  Sten might be right, the Sacred Ashes quest is a waste of time (especially once you've saved the village).  So you were railroaded into that choice.  So you choose to do what the game railroaded into choosing you to do. 

[saintjimmy43]

Hey, does all this quibbling about tone mean that my selfish, douchey Hawke is going to interact with my Inquisitor in a different way from my angelic Hawke?

Is my original sarcastic Warden going to interact with my Inquisitor in a sarcastic way?

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

It's primarily a matter of spending more time on reviewing them and doing them better. The actual physical changes to the presentation and other tweaks are things we will discuss later. Whatever those changes are, however, they will not assuage concerns by people who have a fundamental problem with paraphrases and don't accept them as a solution to their issue with a voiced protagonist.

Does anyone have a fundamental problem with paraphrases?  The paraphrases are a tool - their value is instrumental.  Any problem we might have with them would be based on their failure to fill that role (telling us what dialogue we're choosing).

That they are paraphrases isn't a problem.  That they don't tell us what we need to know is.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

It's primarily a matter of spending more time on reviewing them and doing them better. The actual physical changes to the presentation and other tweaks are things we will discuss later. Whatever those changes are, however, they will not assuage concerns by people who have a fundamental problem with paraphrases and don't accept them as a solution to their issue with a voiced protagonist.

Does anyone have a fundamental problem with paraphrases?  The paraphrases are a tool - their value is instrumental.  Any problem we might have with them would be based on their failure to fill that role (telling us what dialogue we're choosing).

That they are paraphrases isn't a problem.  That they don't tell us what we need to know is.

Oh god yes they do. I remember the threads in the DA2 forums. I remember the 'suggestions' to have a button that tells you every thing your character will say if you click this choice (in text form, of course).

I don't get it, personally. Yeah there were a few times where it'd say something like "I wouldn't" and then Hawke slaps the person with a fish and I was left sitting here wondering what the hell had happened. But for the most part the paraphases and the line delivered matched.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But now that it's explicit with the voice do you rely more heavily on the tone to impart meaning than you did before, and thus have that tone play a larger part in driving NPC responses to lines?

Absolutely. There is no longer a need for a character to say "I am sad", for instance, when they can say the line sadly.

This is only a change if you're having the PC sound sad without the player having explicitly chosen for him to be sad.  Previously, even the line "I am sad" didn't necessarily mean the PC was sad, just that he was claiming to be sad.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Oh god yes they do. I remember the threads in the DA2 forums. I remember the 'suggestions' to have a button that tells you every thing your character will say if you click this choice (in text form, of course).

But that was because the paraphrases weren't conveying enough information.  The thing we know does convey enough information is the full text, so that was proposed as an alternative.

If BioWare somehow manages to make the paraphrases provide us with enough information that we don't feel like we're guessing blindly, then the paraphrases will work.

That they are paraphrases isn't the problem.  That they don't tell us what the PC will say is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Brodoteau wrote...

Because you are playing the story. The point is exactly this, it is not your story.

And that's my point.  If I don't get to create and control my own character, I have no interest in playing the game.

Either the thinkgs I do in the game are an accurate representation of what happened, in which case I don't have any control over Hawke, or the things I do in the game are no an accurate representation of what happened, in which case I don't see why it's even bothering to ask me for input.

If it isn't my story, I have no interest in playing it.

No it's not false.  Having no choice is a game limitation, not a choice.  It's semantics. You HAVE to save Arl Eamon.  You can't mercy kill him.  You can't tell Tegan to grow a pair and take over.

Why do you think those things are related?  That we can't do other things does not mean that we have to do anything in particular.

Semantics matter.  But this isn't just semantics.  In DA2, did you repond to Meredith when she sent you a letter at the start of Act III?  I didn't.  I never responded to that letter.

Responding to that letter is the only way to open the rest of Act III's plot.  Failing to respond to that letter means that you never get to see the rest of the game's story.  But you're never forced to respond to it.

Sten might be right, the Sacred Ashes quest is a waste of time (especially once you've saved the village).  So you were railroaded into that choice.

No you weren't.  One of my characters was killed by Sten there.  He certainly never saved Arl Eamon.

So you choose to do what the game railroaded into choosing you to do.

Railroading is an entirely different issue.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

I get that some people like to imagine their character's tone, and that having that tone made explicit for them prevents them from imagining that for themselves and thus they feel restricted by it. That is, however, not something we can change with the move to a voiced protagonist-- and while the same people can make the argument on these forums time and time again, it's not something we're willing to change. Improving paraphrases, sure... coming up with some elaborate and expensive system to give them what they think they want, when that doesn't really give them what they want at all (a silent protagonist), no.

Thanks for the response, David. I admit I'm a bit disappointed to hear that ideas like the tone toggle are off the table, but I think I get where you're coming from.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a fundamental problem with the idea of a voiced protagonist and paraphrases. In fact, I very much enjoy playing a voiced protagonist in Mass Effect 1. I'm happy to play a firmly pre-established voiced protagonist like Shepard, but when I'm given a voiced character like Hawke, whose personality is more up to the player to choose, I sometimes run into difficulty.
 
But that's not to say that there's no way that a blank-slate voiced protagonist could work for me. Who knows – maybe improving the paraphrases in DA3 will be enough to address the things that caused problems for me.

Modifié par jillabender, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:26 .

[AlexanderCousland]

People are unpredictable. The Dialouge wheel gives you a element of predictability (Red, Blue, Purple) that forces alot of players to choose how they respond to npcs because they want their character to be consistent in tone.
 
When you choose a purple response after mostly choosing red...it feels weird and out of place.

To be clear. I am in favor of a voiced protaginist. I am suggesting that we take colors and pictures off most dialouge options. Keep the Love icon to express interest in a romance and the Fist to express anger or rage. In casual convo, However, let the player decide the meaning by reading the line supplied to us. So you can still invoke a tone onto the PC based on the choices...just make it more of an illusion, it would feel more natural is what Im saying.

Mr. Schumacher. I doubt race has any effect on how you inform someone they have a mess at their work station. I doubt most people of any culture would react negatively to a sincere statement.

Modifié par FreshIstay, 18 octobre 2012 - 07:51 .

[Rune-Chan]

jillabender wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I get that some people like to imagine their character's tone, and that having that tone made explicit for them prevents them from imagining that for themselves and thus they feel restricted by it. That is, however, not something we can change with the move to a voiced protagonist-- and while the same people can make the argument on these forums time and time again, it's not something we're willing to change. Improving paraphrases, sure... coming up with some elaborate and expensive system to give them what they think they want, when that doesn't really give them what they want at all (a silent protagonist), no.

Thanks for the response, David. I admit I'm a bit disappointed to hear that ideas like the tone toggle are off the table, but I think I get where you're coming from.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a fundamental problem with the idea of a voiced protagonist and paraphrases. In fact, I very much enjoy playing a voiced protagonist in Mass Effect 1. I'm happy to play a firmly pre-established voiced protagonist like Shepard, but when I'm given a voiced character like Hawke, whose personality is more up to the player to choose, I sometimes run into difficulty. But who knows - maybe improving the paraphrases in DA3 will be enough to address the things that caused problems for me.

I didn't dislike the voiced protagonist. I quite liked FemHawke's voice actress.

What I disliked were:

- Paraphrases not really representing what was actually said. Which David said they are looking at which is great.
- Auto-dialogue. My largest issue with DA2 and ME3.
- Lack of decent responses. Good, bad or sarcastic is pretty limiting when all three options are not what I'd want. The options don't really change what you say as much as how you say it. Which is not that much different from auto-dialogue.

If those three things are improved, then a voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel will not be an issue for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a fundamental problem with the idea of a voiced protagonist and paraphrases. In fact, I very much enjoy playing a voiced protagonist in Mass Effect 1. I'm happy to play a firmly pre-established voiced protagonist like Shepard, but when I'm given a voiced character like Hawke, whose personality is more up to the player to choose, I sometimes run into difficulty.

I see no difference between Mass Effect and DA2 in this respect.  Either way, I'm not in control, so I don't care.

[abnocte]

As I see it, the only way to improve paraphrases is to allow us to see the full text. 

Before people had problems figuring out the intent for a given line.
Now people have problems figuring out what a paraphrase stands for. 

They have replaced one "problem" with another and since we aren't Borg is imposible for us to know what the writer had in mind when he wrote that line/paraphrase.

Is true that we may guess correctly, but sure as hell we are bound to fail. So to avoid any possible misunderstanding between the game and the player, the game has to give the player the maximum amount of information possible and that would be full text + icons.

Modifié par abnocte, 18 octobre 2012 - 08:55 .

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

I wonder David or Allan can you confirm for us if the different dialogue tones will return? And will they be the same like, snarky, aggressive, or diplomatic or will we see new tones?

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 18 octobre 2012 - 09:10 .

[Foolsfolly]

abnocte wrote...

As I see it, the only way to improve paraphrases is to allow us to see the full text. 

The only way this could be a good burger is if it were a steak.

[jillabender]

I'd just like to add that I'm critical of the way the tone and paraphrase system was handled in DA2 because I felt there were times when it worked very well – for example, in the argument with Carver after finding the will in the former Hawke estate. In that exchange, Hawke could choose between different options that were both influenced by his or her dominant tone, but were subtly different – and that was very satisfying. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of.

But if David is saying, as seems to be the case, that featuring that kind of variability in more interactions isn't feasible, I'll take his word for it. For all I know, the developers might have plans that make my feedback redundant, and I'm certainly willing to give whatever innovations they come up with for DA3 a chance.

Modifié par jillabender, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:27 .

[deuce985]

David Gaider wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...
Why not both? I understand that outwardly, this would seem a task that would be expensive and time intensive, but frequently the devs remind us we (the consumers) should not make it our business to reckon the economics of development and instead to focus on constructive suggestions to improve the game.

We don't say you shouldn't take economics into consideration, we say that you don't... and that you should recognize that you don't. We have to, regardless of whether you do or not.

Your suggestion, while it has its merits, would increase the size of what is already the most expensive character in the game (x2, as it's recorded twice to cover both genders). Far worse, however, it would add micro-management to something that most players really don't want to micro-manage. Picking a dialogue option and then having to pick it again might sound like a thrilling amount of control to some... to most it would be us asking them to answer the same question twice. So, no, that would not work for us.

Fair enough.

If not that then do you think it's possible to add more tone types for each personality alignment? Only when the situation presents itself, as I mentioned earlier? Sometimes Helpful would come up instead of Diplomatic in DA2. Is it possible DA3 will add even more tones for the situation in DA3 or is that something too costly?

Sister dies:

Compassion
Jovial
Unsympathetic


Instead of seeing the traditonal "diplomatic", "sarcastic", and "aggressive" tones? Do you think the tones in DA2 fit every situation? I'm just curious.

Modifié par deuce985, 18 octobre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To play Devil's Advocate here, these ARE people from a different culture. I am not a resident of Thedas, that I know of. In addition, my character is often speaking to characters with whom the Common tongue is not their native language (Qunari, Antivans, Rivani, Orlesians, etc.,etc.).

To counter devil's advocate, you shouldn't be taking "Fast Jimmy's" perspective on things since even in DAO, you're playing a character that IS the resident of Thedas.

To Arret a bons temps your counter, the PC would still be regularly coming into contact with cultures s/he had never met previously. There were no alienages in Lothering, yet Hawke communicated with City Elves as soon as he got in the city. There were no Thaigs nearby or surface dwarves that we saw in Lothering in DA:O, yet Hawke talks with the Dwarven companion right off the bat. Not to mention nearly every non-refugee that Hawke talks to is from a foreign country to Hawke, one that just happens to use Common as its main tongue.


I feel like giving some of my perspective on speech and human reaction here. My job often requires I attend events where people come up to me and I talk to them about my business. I don't have a rehearsed script, but I do have a dozen or so conversation lines I go into out of habit, because they are the most information and efficient ways of telling the people I am talking to who I am and why I am there. 

These responses I can almost say in my sleep, since I'll spend hours each day daying them over and over again. I use nearly the same words almost every time, use a tone that is always professional and friendly and occassionaly pepper it with more personable additions, but essentially keep it the same. Yet, depending on people's moods, people's preconceptions about my business and people's past experiences, my responses range wildly from familiarity, to inquisitiveness, to non-interest, to outright hostilitiy. And, before I open my mouth and begin talking, I have very little idea what to expect from these people. 

This is hardly the embodiment or pinacle of human communication, but it has shown me that regardless of how you say something, either through word choice or tone, people will react in ways you don't expect. I've also found that more miscommunication happens when conveying new information, or conveying emotionally charged information. 

Asking your friends if they watched the game last night is rarely misunderstood. Explaining who Descartes was to a freshmen English major or talking about how a change in a law will result in someone's tax rate going up can often lead to misunderstandings and to reactions or outbursts one would not always expect.

Just adding my two cents in.